Tag Archives: 20mph

WALKING CAMPAIGNERS URGE COUNCIL TO STEP-UP 20MPH ENFORCEMENT

Following the announcement that the City of Edinburgh Council’s 20 mph programme has reduced average vehicle speeds by 1.3 mph (about 6%), local walking campaigners have called on the Council to step-up enforcement and to introduce traffic-calming measures at key speeding blackspots across the city.

Don McKee, the Convenor of Living Streets Edinburgh Group [1] said:

‘We strongly support the 20mph initiative which has already made a significant improvement to Edinburgh streets. However, because there is so little chance of being caught by the police, in free-flowing traffic situations too many motorists are able to drive at excessive speeds. We can’t rely on signage alone to eliminate this kind of antisocial behaviour. We want to see more enforcement action by Police Scotland, including wider use of speed cameras, and traffic calming measures introduced on particular problem streets.’

 

1] Living Streets Edinburgh Group is the local voluntary arm of the national charity campaigning for better conditions for ‘everyday’ walking. See: http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/about/about-living-streets/

West Edinburgh Link: Comments by Living Streets Edinburgh

A. Introduction

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is the local voluntary arm of the national charity, Living Streets, which campaigns for better conditions for ‘everyday walking’. In LSEG our key aim is to promote walking as a safe, enjoyable and easy way of getting around the city.

We welcome this significant investment in active travel. We perceive the principal aim of this scheme as providing safe and attractive cycling routes to the Gyle and Edinburgh Park business areas from the north and south, taking opportunities to enhance the local pedestrian environment. We would like to see these opportunities maximised, which will benefit all people in the residential area, not only those who wish to cycle. A fundamental point is that all proposals and designs must explicitly conform to the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance for the category/categories of street. We have agreed the appended general ’walkability criteria’ to assess street design proposals, and would ask that they are also applied here.

We would suggest that the objectives of the scheme need further clarification; in particular, we note that the project website states “efforts will be made to preserve…the flow of vehicles”. While we certainly agree that the effect on traffic flows needs to be carefully considered, we think that the scheme should try to reduce some motor traffic, especially commuting by private car to the Gyle/Edinburgh Park areas.

B. General observations.

Positive aspects

We welcome many aspects of the proposed design, such as new pedestrian crossings (eg Glasgow Road, Maybury Drive, Wester Hailes Road, Clovenstone Road) and the bridge over the railway line at Gyle Park. We welcome exploiting all opportunities for pedestrian ‘short cuts’ for example potentially from S Gyle Access to S Gyle Crescent via Flasshes Yard, and Dell Road to the Water of Leith. We would like particular attention to be given to enhancing walking links (in terms of safety, accessibility and convenience) to the schools in the vicinity of the project.  However, we would like to see a number of walking improvements included, as set out below:

Footway widths

The current and proposed width of footways on the many streets included in this scheme is not generally shown on the maps provided but many are too narrow. We wish to see any footway which is currently below the minimum width as specified in the Street Design Guidance widened to meet the “absolute minimum” standard – and of course, the aim should be to exceed absolute minimum standards. As a flagship ‘walking and cycling scheme’ meeting agreed minimum standards should be an absolutely fundamental requirement the scheme.

Junction radii

The residential areas in the scheme area were designed before the ‘Designing Streets’ 2010 guidance and thinking, and long before 20mph became the norm for local streets. They often feature wide junction splays and long corner radii. These make it more difficult and unsafe for pedestrians to cross side streets, as there is further to travel and the geometry encourages higher vehicle speeds.  There are probably dozens of such junctions in the scheme area and we would like to see the maximum possible improvements to these, including at the junctions where raised tables are proposed.

Dropped kerbs

Similarly many road junctions in residential areas lack dropped kerbs (eg N Gyle Drive at N Gyle Road). These should be installed as a matter of course as part of the scheme. We understand that the Council has a full database of ‘missing’ dropped kerbs which should be used to address this. Tactile paving should be installed where required.

Traffic calming

We note (and welcome) the proposed use of raised tables at several junctions (for example Craigmount Grove). We would support wider use of traffic calming measures on streets where local communities perceive speeding and rat-running as a significant problem.

Shared Use pavements

There are several places where it is proposed to share the footway between pedestrians and cyclists (eg Westburn Avenue, S Gyle Access). We are opposed to this design in principle, which we believe builds in conflict between the two modes, although we accept that this is viable in some park/footpath settings (as opposed to pavements). We note that Sustrans has now also adopted this policy position.

Public transport interchange

Measures should be taken to improve the routes to the bus and tram stops (particularly Bankhead which has a complicated multi stage crossing to Edinburgh college / Napier campus). This needs to be simplified with more frequent and generous pedestrians phases. Ideally these should coincide with tram arrival times – an opportunity to use ‘smart’ signal technology? technology.

We have long had concerns that ‘floating bus stops’ pose a risk to pedestrians – particularly bus passengers alighting who will not expect the possibility of encountering cyclists. We agreed to support their installation on Leith Walk in 2016, on the understanding that a full and objective evaluation of this perceived risk is carried out. As this has still not been published we therefore continue to oppose the installation of further floating bus stops, including as part of this scheme.

Seats

We would like to see seats installed at suitable locations throughout the area, which will encourage less mobile pedestrians to use the streets, knowing that there are opportunities to rest at suitable locations, especially where it is hilly or there are steps. One such location would be the proposed Gyle Park bridge.

Pavement clutter

We assume that a full de-cluttering exercise will be carried out on all streets included within the scheme, removing unnecessary signage poles, inappropriately-sited cycle racks and redundant guardrail, for example.

C. Conclusion

We welcome the proposed improvements to the pedestrian environment throughout the route; however, we note that there are very many other opportunities to improve walking in local areas from Wester Hailes to East Craigs. Although this scheme has a significant budget, we appreciate that it will not be possible to fund all the walking and cycling improvements which are desirable. The extensive new development in west Edinburgh is also an opportunity to ensure that more  investment for improving pedestrian infrastructures achieved through the planning process and consents. We would ask that the prioritisation of spending between measures which principally benefit walking on the one hand and cycling on the other is done transparently and takes account of the number of people likely to benefit. There should be no presumption that ‘walking measures’ – such as widening pavements and dropping kerbs – are necessarily secondary to ‘cycling measures’.

***

Appendix: Living Streets Edinburgh ‘Walkability Criteria’

Living Streets Edinburgh Group (LSEG) is keen to ensure that all types of transport and public realm schemes – whether routine maintenance or new initiatives – improve the walking environment. We would like to see each scheme satisfy the following fundamental aims:

  1. compliance with the Council’s Street Design Guidance [http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/550/edinburgh_street_design_guidance] – at the very least, its minimum standards, eg on footway width and frequency of pedestrian crossings, and,
  2. compliance with the transport hierarchy set out in Scottish Planning Policy (2014) – https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/pages/8/including ‘Plans should identify active travel networks and promote opportunities for travel by more sustainable modes in the following order of priority: walking, cycling, public transport, cars’.

LSEG does not have the resources to examine and comment in detail on every transport and public realm proposal; our view on whether a scheme design has satisfied these fundamental aims will be determined by Council answers to the following questions on ‘walkability’ criteria:

  1. How does the design contribute to the Council’s strategic objective to promote walking [as set out in the Active Travel Plan http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/info/20087/cycling_and_walking/1791/cycling_and_walking_projects/1]?
  2. Does the scheme comply in detail with the Council’s Street Design Guidance, for example with regard to footway widths, frequency of pedestrian crossing points, decluttering, continuous footways over side street junctions, and junction corner radii (amongst many other issues)? Where does it fail to comply?
  3. Are pedestrian crossing points convenient in terms of proximity, waiting times, directness and time to cross, especially for less able users?
  4. Does the scheme as a whole improve road safety, especially in terms of vehicle speeds at junctions and crossing points?
  5. Has an Equality Impact Assessment been carried out? If so, what are the chief impacts on disabled or elderly pedestrians?
  6. Which walking elements of the scheme represent a quantitative / qualitative enhancement or deterioration of current walking facilities, eg footway widths?
  7. In what ways does it avoid pedestrian conflicts with other road users (including motor vehicles and cyclists), eg by providing dedicated and well-defined space for pedestrians and avoiding ‘shared spaces’?

Ten charities back 20mph for safer Holyrood Park

Ten charities back 20mph for safer Holyrood Park

150414160858IMG_0973
Park dominated by cars

Ten leading disability and environmental Scottish charities (1), brought together by Living Streets’ Edinburgh Group (2), have written to the Scottish Government urging action to be taken to turn Holyrood Park into a safe and attractive space for all.

While the city of Edinburgh gears up to reduce speeds to 20 mph, most of the sprawling park, meant to provide leisure opportunities for residents and visitors alike, remains a 30 mph limit with only one pedestrian crossing. The call follows concerns about the growing number of traffic accidents in the park (3).

The ten co-signing charities are calling for Historic Environment Scotland to review visitor access and safety arrangements in the park more generally at a time when Historic Environment Scotland is consulting on its corporate plan (4).

David Spaven, Convener, Living Streets Edinburgh, said:

IMG_7052
Park should be a green space

“Holyrood Park is a unique green space, close to the heart of Edinburgh, but it’s become far too dominated by the speed and noise of vehicle traffic.

“People who want to enjoy this special park quietly and safely face far too many obstacles – speeding traffic, hardly any safe road crossings, and pedestrians and cyclists forced to use narrow ‘shared space’ paths.

“The time is right for Historic Environment Scotland and the Scottish Government to consider transport priorities for the park, with the needs of people on foot put right at the top of the list.”

Ross Macfadyen, Interim Director, RNIB Scotland, said:

“We want Holyrood Park to be a safe place that can be accessed and enjoyed by everybody. At the moment, the high volumes of traffic not only affect the air quality and noise but also people’s perception of how safe the park is.

“This can be very off-putting for many people with sight loss and can result in them not using the park, therefore denying themselves the pleasures of the great outdoors and being fit and healthy.”

John Lauder, National Director, Sustrans Scotland, said:

”While City of Edinburgh Council is rolling out 20mph zones across the city, the iconic Holyrood Park is being left behind. Right now it’s just not living up to its potential as a safe, attractive space for people on foot and bike to enjoy.

“In Scotland we have strong, cross-party support for walking and cycling and a government that has invested record levels in active travel over the past couple of years. Yet, on the door-step of the Parliament, one of Scotland’s most iconic parks is being used a rat-run – to the detriment of its users and those who live in the neighbouring communities.

“We want Holyrood Park to reflect Scotland’s ambition on active travel, by making it a safe attractive space for people making journeys on foot and by bike.”

Brian Sloan, Age Scotland Chief Executive, added his support to the campaign:

“Traditionally urban parks have been viewed as the ‘lungs of the city’ and we fear that given the current situation Edinburgh’s ‘lungs’ are being unnecessarily harmed.

“Holyrood Park could be a wonderful space for people of all ages to engage in an activity, such as walking or cycling, to enhance wellbeing and quality of life.

“Yet, given the current infrastructural prevalence for vehicular traffic this means that many people are put off from venturing into Holyrood Park. We urge the authorities to re-consider this so that Holyrood Park can rightfully be restored as a beneficial place for citizens and visitors alike to enjoy to its full potential.”

Contact

For more information or to arrange interviews, please contact Kathryn Shaw, Media and PR Coordinator: Kathryn.Shaw@livingstreets.org.uk / 020 7377 4914.

Zebra-Crossing
Zebra crossing installed in 2005 removed by end of 2008
This crossing point was removed
This crossing point was removed

 

Notes to editors:

  1. RNIB Scotland, Guide Dogs Scotland, Age Scotland, Spokes (Lothian Cycle Campaign), Sustrans Scotland, Paths for All, Living Streets Scotland, Transform Scotland and Ramblers Scotland
  2. Living Streets Edinburgh is a local campaign group of Living Streets, the UK charity for everyday walking. We want to create a walking nation, free from congested roads and pollution, reducing the risk of preventable illness and social isolation and making walking the natural choice. We believe that a walking nation means progress for everyone.Our ambition is to get people of all generations to enjoy the benefits that this simple act brings and to ensure all our streets are fit for walking. For more than 85 years we’ve been a beacon for walking. In our early days our campaigning led to the UK’s first zebra crossings and speed limits. Now, our campaigns and local projects deliver real change to overcome barriers to walking and our ground breaking initiatives such as the world’s biggest Walk to School campaign encourage millions of people to walk.
  3. http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search shows over 50 fatal (1) serious and minor accidents
  4. Historic Scotland Consultation http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/index/about/consultations/hesconsult.htm. Historic Environment Scotland’s new Chief Executive David Middleton was in charge of Transport Scotland when it brought out guidance on 20mph limits in urban areas
Holyrood park only has one zebra crossing
Holyrood park only has one zebra crossing